CRP/4267/2025 of R.Balasubramaniam Vs PARVATHIAMMAL on 1 September 2026

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 20.08.2025 made in EA No.08 of 2017 in EP No.14/2013 in OS No.454 of 1995 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palladam.

2. The 1st respondent and her husband Marappa Gounder/plaintiffs had filed O.S.No.454 of 1995 against one Karunaiammal (deceased) /defendant seeking declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and also seeking possession of the A schedule property from the defendant. The above said suit was decreed on 23.10.2003 and to execute the above decree the plaintiffs filed E.P.No.14 of 2013. During the execution proceedings the defendant Karunaimmal/judgment debtor died and her legal heirs, namely, the petitioners were impleaded as respondents and they filed E.A.No.8 of 2017 in E.P.No.14 of 2013, seeking dismissal of the execution petition, contending that the decree passed in the original suit is inexecutable.

3. In the said application in E.A.No.8 of 2017, the parties also chose to lead evidence and 4th petitioner herein was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 were marked on the side of the petitioners and the 5th respondent herein was examined RW1 and Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 were marked on the side of the respondents. The executing court dismissed the said application and challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

4. Mr.N.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for the petitioners would firstly contend that the suit was filed for recovery of possession of vacant land and the decree also specifically referred to vacant land. He would, however, state that admittedly, superstructure exists on the said land, which has been put up by the revision petitioners and therefore, the decree, without mentioning the existence of the superstructure and without any direction for removal of the same, cannot be executed in law. He would also point out to the admissions of the respondents themselves that the petitioners are residing in the suit property and therefore, he would pray for the revision being allowed, dismissing the execution petition.

5. Per contra, Mr.Shobana Ramasubramanyan learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 5 and Mr.K.C.Karlmarx, learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4, who are the legal heirs of the original plaintiffs, would contend that the petitioners do not even reside in the decreetal property and in fact, one of the sisters aone resides in a small superstructure. They would also state that the executing court has rightly found that though the petitioners’ claim that they had put up superstructure in the year 1978, the petitioners were not able to produce any acceptable documentary evidence to substantiate such self serving claims and therefore, they would state that there is no infirmity in the order of the executing court, dismissing the E.A. 08 of2017 in E.P.No.14 of 2013, warranting in this revision petition.

6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the material documents.

7. The primordial contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that a decree, which can be executed is only a decree for recovery of possession of vacant land and admittedly, when there is a superstructure put up on the said land, over which the revision petitioners claim right, then the decree becomes in executable. In fact, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find that this stand was taken, even before the Trial Court, in the written statement itself, where a contention is taken that superstructure has been put up by the defendant, under whom, the present revision petitioner’s claim, even in the year 1978. However, the said suit came to be disposed on 23.10.2003. Though no specific issue with regard to the superstructure was framed, the Trial Court, at paragraph No.9, while answering Issue No.4 regarding entitlement of the plaintiffs, found that though the defendants set up a case that they put up a construction even in the year 1978, they have not filed any documentary evidence to prove the same and that Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 house tax receipts and ration care were all in the year 1999 or thereafter and finding that they were documents post suit, the Trial Court disregarded the same.

8. Though the decree was challenged by the defendants in A.S.No.5 of 2004, successfully, at the instance of the respondents/plaintiffs in S.A.89 of 2006, this court allowed the second appeal on 02.03.2012 and restored the decree of the Trial Court. In such circumstances, when the issue has already been raised and rejected by the Trial Court, I do not see, how the petitioners are entitled to re- agitate the same in a claim petition, pending execution of the decree. Further, the executing court has also referred to the report of the Advocate Commissioner, who has found that the superstructure is in a dilapidated stage and that it has been whitewashed recently. No objections were also taken to the said report of the Advocate Commissioner as well. The above factum again only re-affirms the findings of the Trial Court that there was no superstructure put up in the year 1978. Further, the very case of the petitioners is that they were cultivating tenants and therefore, their claim that they have put up a superstructure and they have been residing there, cannot be countenanced. The executing court, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, rightly found that the claim of the petitioners is fanciful and unsubstantiated and that it is not sufficient to prevent the decree holders from enjoying the fruits of the decree. Therefore, I do not see how the executing court fell in error in dismissing the Section 47 application and hence, no interference warranting in this revision petition.

9. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

01-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The District Munsif, Palladam.

P.B.BALAJI, J. MST CRP No. 4267 of 2025 01-09-2026